Supreme Court justices need to focus on U.S. Constitution

In her Georgetown speech, O'Connor said, "We operate today under a very large array of international agreements, treaties, organizations." Such language is reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton's statement to the United Nations that he was pushing the United States into a "web of institutions and arrangements" for "the emerging international system."

International agreements usually have negative fallout. One law enforcement expert dubbed the North American Free Trade agreement the "North American Free Trafficking Agreement" because it has greatly expanded illegal drug smuggling into our country.

Section 3331 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires high-ranking officers, including Supreme Court justices, to take this oath:

I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Violation of this oath should be an impeachable offense. Yet, six of the nine Supreme Court justices are now on record using references to foreign law in their opinions. In a speech last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, "Your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world."

Three justices disagree. Most Americans would agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote that the Court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

It's time for the American people to let the justices, and all future judicial nominees, know that we believe it is their duty to base their decisions on the U.S. Constitution, and that it is a violation of their oath of office to base decisions on foreign decisions or practices.